HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422

Page 1 of 13 Original Research

The 50-year jubileum of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies in the John Scottus Eriugena (815–877) research, 1970–2020

Author: This article charters the history and work of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian 1,2 Johann Beukes Studies (SPES), which celebrated its 50-year jubileum in 2020. After a brief introduction to the Affiliations: thought of John Scottus Eriugena (815–877), with emphasis on his primary text (in five 1Department of Philosophy volumes), Periphyseon, written between 864 and 866 and condemned as heretical in 1050, and Classics, Faculty of 1059, 1210 and finally in 1225, the development of SPES over the past five decades is surveyed Humanities, University of the in detail and connected to an outstanding work published in the Brill’s Companions to the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Christian Tradition series in Leiden (2020), under the editorship of Adrian Guiu (A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena). The article is descriptive and analytical in its presentation of the 2Center for the History of relevant history of ideas and synthetical in its attempt to coherently integrate the most recent Philosophy and Science, secondary texts on the relevant philosophical themes in Eriugena research. Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Contribution: The article contributes to the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies’ Studies, Radboud University, 50-year jubileum by summarising its conference outputs over the past five decades in an Nijmegen, Netherlands extensive overview as well as connecting its work to A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena Corresponding author: (Brill, Leiden, 2020), thereby furthering the society’s efforts and specialist research outputs to Johann Beukes, a broader, non-specialised readership. [email protected] Keywords: John Scottus Eriugena (815–877); a companion to John Scottus Eriugena; Adrian Dates: Guiu; Edouard Jeauneau; Willemien Otten; John O’Meara; Periphyseon; Society for the Received: 11 Jan. 2021 Promotion of Eriugena Studies; SPES; Inglis Sheldon-Williams. Accepted: 19 Apr. 2021 Published: 31 May 2021 How to cite this article: Introduction Beukes, J., 2021, ‘The 50-year jubileum of the Society for More than three centuries after it was written, the primary text of the only speculative Western the Promotion of Eriugenian philosopher from the Carolingian period in Medieval philosophy met a cruel fate. John Scottus Studies in the John Scottus Eriugena’s (815–877) magistral five-volume dialogue Periphyseon (written between 864 and 866; cf. Eriugena (815–877) research, 1970–2020’, HTS Teologiese Eriugena 1996–2003), in which an enigmatic speculative philosophy was developed based on both Studies/ Theological Studies the Greek and Latin patristic and philosophical traditions and which could be regarded as a 77(4), a6456. https://doi. sophisticated philosophical interchange between the Medieval West and East, was condemned as org/10.4102/hts.v77i4.6456 heretical in 1050, 1059, 1210 and finally in 1225, as a precursor to the infamous Paris condemnations Copyright: of 1277. The final condemnation of thePeriphyseon compromised its commentary potential and steady © 2021. The Authors. historical reception as well as restricted the stature and influence of its author in high scholasticism. Licensee: AOSIS. This work Given the ‘widespread antipathy towards philosophical thought’ (Lahey 2020:448) in early is licensed under the Creative Commons 13th-century Paris, several theologians interpreted the Periphyseon as pantheistic and declared its Attribution License. contents heretical, thereby rendering the work effectively obsolete. All available copies of the work were sent to Rome by Honorius III (Cencio Savelli, 1150–1227, Pope 1216–1227) to be destroyed. A few manuscripts nevertheless stayed in circulation and the work was eventually printed in Oxford in 1681, but this printed version was put on the infamous Index of Prohibited Books in 1684 and kept on it for nearly three centuries, before the Index itself expired in the 1960s (cf. Carabine 2000:23).

The consequence of the Periphyseon’s unfortunate condemnation is that the specialist Eriugena research1 is still a relatively young domain, given the vastness and age of the standardised Medieval canon. It was only in 1925 and 1933 that solid introductions to Eriugena’s life and thought were presented in an exquisite English monography by Henry Bett from Cambridge Read online: University (Johannes Scotus Erigena: A Study in Medieval Philosophy; Bett 1925) and a magnificent Scan this QR French (Louvain) dissertation by Maïeul Cappuyns (Jean Scot Érigène. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée; code with your smart phone or 1.For accessible introductions to Eriugena’s life and work, see Bett (1925:11–33); Carabine (2000:13–26); Copleston (1993:112–135); mobile device Costambeys, Innes and MacLean (2014:1–30); Grabmann (1957:192–214); Haren (1985:75–82); Hyman, Walsh and Williams to read online. (2010:145–148); Marenbon (1981:88–111, 1988:48–52); McKitterick (2004:1–27); Moran (1989:35–47, 1990:131–151, 2008); Otten (1991:40–81); Sheldon-Williams (1967:518–531) and Weiner (2007:1–40).

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 2 of 13 Original Research

Cappuyns 1933), both to a large extent based on cross Eriugena translated the complete, extant Pseudo-Dionysius references between Eriugena and several early scholastics corpus from Greek into Latin. Another translation of the preceding 1225, thus before its final condemnation. Dionysian corpus was, however, already completed in 827 by the abbot Hilduin of Saint Denis, chaplain to Charles’ father, John Scottus Eriugena (815–877) Louis I (‘The Pious’, 778–840), by request of the emperor of Constantinople, Michael II (770–829). This translation was and the Periphyseon (864–866) presented as a gift to Louis, yet Charles demanded a unique Eriugena seems to be ‘a man of many names’ (Carabine translation from the Carolingian court. Eriugena swiftly 2000:13): in Irish Gaelic and English alone he is referred to as completed the new translation with distinction, on grounds of John Scottus Eriugena, Iohannes Scotus, Scottigena and which he became the emperor’s academic guest and protégé.3 Erigena, with several variations in English and other languages. There probably will never be consensus about an Eriugena, thus, initially made impact on the Carolingian authentic or ‘correct’ proper name. In addition, there is often court as an arts lecturer, followed by his role as a court confusion outside the discipline of Medieval philosophy translator specialising in translations from Greek to Latin regarding the ‘other John Scotus’ (John Duns Scotus, Duns (cf. Carabine 2000:16–17; Erismann 2020:93): Apart from his Scotus or simply ‘Scotus’, ca. 1266–1308), the remarkable translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum, he also embarked on Franciscan from the late 13th century. However, the confusion translating the Quaestiones ad Thalassium of Maximus surrounding Eriugena’s many names is unnecessary: both Confessor and the De hominis opificio of Gregory of Nyssa Scot(t)us and Eri(u)gena, or the more forced Scottigena, simply (which Eriugena retitled as De imagine). These translations indicate that this court scholar2 ‘Iohannes’ hailed from Ireland distinguished Eriugena from his contemporaries, precisely and gave himself the tautological sobriquet ‘Scottus Eriugena’ because very few Western scholars were able to read Greek (‘John Irish, the Irish-born’; cf. Siewers 2020:9) – because he (just as few Greek writers from Byzantium could read Latin). wanted to emphasise his Irish heritage and Northern English It was indeed the quality of his translation of the Corpus connection with (730–804), the formidable academic Dionysiacum that left the impression that Eriugena was the administrator and monastery reformer from York and later only thinker who could somehow ‘unite’ Rome and Athens principal of the Carolingian palace school in Aix-la-Chapelle. in Aix-la-Chapelle: the quality reveals itself therein that To avoid confusion with the 13th-century John Duns Scotus, Eriugena was not intimidated by technical problems in the custom in contemporary research is that John Scottus translating the always obscure Dionysius’ Neoplatonic Eriugena is referred to simply as ‘Eriugena’, with the exception conceptualisations but illuminated them with creative of titles and abstracts of books and articles on Eriugena, where expositions4 in Latin. With this translation Eriugena the full (presumed) name is normally used. penetrated the heart of which he systematically redeveloped in a unique and original speculative philosophy, Eriugena arrived in the at the Carolingian court of Charlemagne’s (‘Charles the Great’, 748–814) grandson, 3.The translated Corpus Dionysiacum consists of De Divinis Nominibus (The Divine Names), De Mystica Theologia (The Mystical Theology), (The Charles II (‘The Bald’, 823–877). He lectured the seven liberal Celestial Hierarchy), De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia (The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) and Epistulae (Letters). These editorial titles of the Dionysian corpus are not arts (the trivium and quadrivium) for some time at the palace straightforward: Eriugena (in Periphyseon IV 757C and 759C; Corpus Christianorum school, extensively employing ’ (ca.477–524) De Continuatio Mediaevalis 164 238.1139 & 246.1274–5), for instance, refers to De Mystica Theologia as Symbolica Theologia (on Eriugena’s translation of De Mystica Consolatione Philosophiae, also in preparation for the writing Theologia as such, see Harrington 2004:22–30). The source of the above translated titles of the Corpus Dionysiacum is those of Rorem (1993:241–243), based on the of his magnum opus, the Periphyseon. From Eriugena’s critical edition of Suchla, Heil and Ritter (Corpus Dionysiacum, Volumes I & II, preliminary notes it is clear that he considered the liberal arts Patristische Texte und Studien, Volumes 33 & 36, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York; see Pseudo-Dionysius 1990–1991). For the English translation Rorem used (with as the key prerequisite to Biblical exegesis (cf. Kavanagh an introduction to the translation by himself), see Luibheid (transl.) 1987. The Dionysian writings themselves continued to ‘influence the West in the form of Latin 2020:326). In fact, Eriugena emphasised the (although translations by Hilduin and Eriugena in the ninth century and by John Sarracenus (fl. hyperbolic) early Medieval exegetical principle: nemo intrat ca.1167) and Robert Grosseteste (ca.1175–1253) in the High Middle Ages, and through commentaries by Eriugena, Hugh of Saint-Victor (d.1142), Thomas Gallus, in caelum nisi per philosophiam [‘no one enters heaven other Albert the Great (ca.1200–1280) and (1225–1274)’ (Rorem 1993:16). These later translators and commentators of the Dionysian writings in high probability than by philosophy’]. The liberal arts is the ancilla did not know they could often be reading ‘Eriugena’ on the side (Albert, for one, was certain that ‘the whole commentary was […] the work of Maximus’; Tugwell 1988:40): (‘handmaid’) of the study of the canonised texts. Without excerpts of the Periphyseon were added to the Corpus Dionysiacum in the Paris philosophy, no proper theology is possible. Manuscript (ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 17341). The anonymous compiler of this manuscript added around 100 passages from the Periphyseon to the papal bibliothecarius Anastasius’ (810–878) Latin translation of the Greek scholia (cf. Harrington 2004:2–3, 26–27). This compilation was used as a textbook for students at As a court scholar, Eriugena had no responsibilities or the University of Paris and ‘many other universities and monastery schools’ obligations in the church as such. However, in his capacity as (Harrington 2004:3) and had the effect that Eriugena’s ‘teachings did not completely disappear, especially in terms of his negative theology and hyperphatic predication of lecturer at the palace school he got involved in a robust church (super or plus quam) – of course, these were anonymous, so readers of the Paris manuscript did not know they were reading “Eriugena”’ (acknowledging an debate concerning divine predestination, in which his anonymous reviewer’s comment with reference to the last sentence). erudition in Greek, Latin and patrology impressed the 4.Regarding Eriugena’s creative use of language in translations: referring to itas emperor. Given the Carolingian court’s positive attitude ‘neologisms’ (as in Beukes 2020:I:128) is probably not nuanced enough, whilst employing terms like ‘exposition’ and ‘creativity’ are more subtle and possibly more toward the Hellenistic heritage, Charles II requested that suitable: ‘Rather than summarize or avoid cases in which a direct translation from Greek to Latin is impossible, John chose to include terminological exposition and 2.It has often been assumed that Eriugena was a monk, but little is known about his nuanced paraphrase in his translations’ (Guiu 2020c:5); in the same vein Carabine life before he appeared at the Carolingian court in the 840s. He likely studied in Irish (2000:24) states that ‘[d]ialectic […] is Eriugena’s method of explication precisely monastic schools and had ‘no distinguished rank within the church’ […] which ‘could because it is the method of the creative process at work’ (author’s italics). Also, see mean that he was a simple monk, although no other document of the time makes Harrington (2004:23–24) on Eriugena’s translation of the Greek term ‘beyond’ reference to this fact’ (Carabine 2000:14; with acknowledegment of two anonymous (epegeina) as ‘summit’ (summitas), as an example of Eriugena’s rendering of ‘the reviewers’ questions and comments in this regard). non-cognitive Greek term in cognitive Latin terms’ (Harrington 2004:24).

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 3 of 13 Original Research as presented in the Periphyseon. Eriugena particularly of all created things to the creator. Although Eriugena’s reappraised Dionysius in terms of his consideration of the unique Aristotelian Neoplatonism is clearly present in the unknowable nature of God, the role and function of negative Periphyseon, the notion of ‘creation’ is thematically the basis theology and the reditus or ascension of all things back to of each of the five sections, indicating the process in terms of God, but in a broader sense he also re-engaged Eastern which the unmanifested God becomes visible and how this fathers such as Maximus Confessor and several diverse ‘visibility’ returns to the unmanifested Selfness of God. receptions of Aristotle, as available in the 9th century. Volume I starts with Eriugena’s hyper-inclusive concept of In terms of his formation as a true Carolingian ‘polymath’ natura or ‘nature’ (Otten 1991:7–10, 2020a: 189–191): the first and (Carabine 2000: Preface) and distinctively speculative fundamental division of all things, whether it can be grasped philosopher, Eriugena’s sources were, thus, both the Western by the mind or not, is a division between things that are and and Eastern thinkers. This is what makes Eriugena such an things that are not (cf. Haren 1985:75–82). Natura or ‘nature’ is attractive theorist for his own time and, in fact, for any time: he for Eriugena a general name for all things, for both that which is not to be categorised from one perspective only as ‘West’ or is and that which is not. In other words, every object of thought ‘East’, or strictly in Western terms, Platonic-Augustinian is already embedded in nature (cf. Eriugena in Sheldon- or steady Aristotelian. His reception of Aristotle is grounded in Williams 1968:197). He then isolates five modes of interpretation ’s Isagoge, Boethius’ translations of and commentaries in this first division, which is the ‘basic difference that divides on the Aristotelian text in Latin (the aim of which was precisely all things’ (Eriugena in Sheldon-Williams 1968:198). In the first a reconciliation of and Aristotle), whilst his translation of place, and non-being are considered in terms of sensibility Maximus Confessor’s Quaestiones ad Thalassium contributed to or perceptibility, which for Eriugena means that beingness can the development of his unique Aristotelianism. His Platonic be predicated by either the mind or the senses. God is not orientation was profoundly influenced by Neoplatonism, perceived in this way and must in terms of this mode of whether via Augustine or the Eastern trajectory of Pseudo- interpretation be predicated as non-being. Secondly, being and Dionysius. Eriugena was by 864 well prepared to synthesise non-being is considered in terms of its place in the Neoplatonic these influences in an original and exhaustivesumma . hierarchy, which links the creator emanationally descending with the lowest creatures and the lowest creatures ascending The Periphyseon is presented in the form of a dialogue and returning toward the creator. In this mode, intellectual between a nutritor or teacher and an alumnus or student (cf. ability is crucial: when being is predicated from a creature of a Lloyd-Sidle 2020:113): this stylistic consideration brings a higher order, that creature is absolved of a lower order and vice human element into a dense and difficult text. The alumnus is versa. This is what makes difference between things possible. often confused, shocked, surprised, bored and restless and The third mode of interpretation deals with actualisation in its poses questions from this unsteady disposition which the treatment of the Aristotelian distinction between potentiality nutritor then answers with progressive refinement, until the and actuality, whilst the fourth considers the faculty of alumnus is satisfied or at least less confused (cf. Lloyd-Sidle perception, which, in fact, is a refinement of the first mode: 2020:113–115). The work consists of five books or volumes, when something appears to the mind as true and to the senses although Eriugena initially scheduled only four, which he as non-true, the Platonic principle that the mind’s perception wanted to correspond with his four divisions of nature: the must be prioritized, applies. The fifth and last mode of division of being and non-being, the division of the uncreated interpretation deals with the human subject as such and and the creator, the division of causality and diversity and encapsulates Eriugena’s notion of free will: this is the mode that the division of the human body and soul. The first division understands the subject as the realisation of the image of God, provides the depth structure of the work, whilst the second with the logical consequence that when the subject is removed to fourth divisions are divisions of being. or alienated from a similarity with God, the subject is not.

Volume I describes the five modes of being and non-being, Volume II deals fourfold with the division of uncreated and presents the four divisions of nature and investigates the first creator: firstly, that which is creating but is not created, which division, which is the role of God as uncreated creator. This is God, the source of creation; secondly, that which is created investigation into the nature of God is supplemented with an and is itself creating – clearly pointing to a synthesis of extensive excursus on negative theology, theophany Neoplatonic and Christian notions, in the sense that the (cf. Barstad 2020:267–268) and the applicability of the 10 Neoplatonic (the expression of the divine mind and the Aristotelian categories on divine nature. Volume II defines eternal corporality of archetypes in creation), is related to the the second division of nature by examining the primordial second Person of the Trinity; thirdly, that which is created and causes for diversity in the sensical world. Volume III engages is itself not creating, the subject of Volume III, namely, the the third division of nature in terms of creation, as a relation cosmos; and lastly, that which is not created and is itself not between created things’ participation in ‘something’ and creating, the subject of volumes IV and V, which is the God of ‘nothing’. Volume IV essentially presents Eriugena’s the eternal return of things in the Neoplatonic inversion of the anthropology and investigates the fourth division in nature hierarchy, of the body to the soul, of the soul to the causes and in the presumed human dualistic self. Volume V comprises of the causes to God, which is everything in all things (cf. Haren Eriugena’s idiosyncratic Neoplatonist eschatology and 1985:75–82). In the Neoplatonic creative descent downwards extends the Neoplatonic notion of reditus, the eventual return and the ascending return of all things to their source, Eriugena

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 4 of 13 Original Research makes an important distinction between datum [‘gift’] and Fourteen extant works can with certainty be ascribed to donum [‘grace’]: datum is the ‘initial constitution of all things in Eriugena, as listed in the published proceedings of Society being’, whilst donum ‘represents the virtues by which nature is for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies (SPES) (see infra; adorned’ (Carabine 2000:57). While being could be considered cf. Corrazon 2019:1): as the datum of God by which every nature exists in the world, • De divinae praedestinatione (‘On divine predestination’; being becomes well-being through the donum of God, allowing ca. 850–851); every nature not only to participate in the world but also to • In Priscianum (also known as the Glosae Prisciani; return to God in eternity (cf. Carabine 2000:57). ca. 850); • Annotationes in Marcianum (ca. 840–850); Eriugena, thus, maintains the role and adequacy of divine • Glosae Martiani (ca. 840–850); grace but presents it as a grace that enables the ‘elected’ of • Glossae divinae historiae (850–860); God to move even beyond the primordial created state of • Versio operum sancti Dionysii Areopagitae (the mentioned perfection before the fall of humankind in original sin. This translation of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, completed special status that Eriugena ascribes to the ‘faithful’ is before 860–864); referred to as ‘deification’, by which Eriugena means the • Versio sancti Gregorii Nisseni Sermonis de imagine return of the saintly to God, not only in soul but in body as (the translation of Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Image of well, so that the elected are one in God (cf. Haren 1985:79) Man; 862–864); when nothing animalistic, bodily, human or natural remains. • Versio sancti Maximi Confessoris Ambigua ad lohannem Conscious of the contentiousness of a concept such as (the translation of Maximus Confessor’s Ambigua to deification, Eriugena nevertheless preserves the use of the John; 862–864); concept in order to guarantee the continued and • Versio sancti Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones ad Thalassium distinguishable existence of the individual soul. Although he (the translation of Maximus Confessor’s Questions to hereby succeeded in maintaining both the Christian notion of Thalassius; 864–866); the immortality of the soul and the Neoplatonic–mystical ascension of the soul, the concept led to much confusion and • Periphyseon I – V (864–866); an alienation from Augustinian theology. But more • Expositiones in hierarchiam caelestem (an exposition on 6 importantly, this concept played a crucial role in the repeated The Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius; 864–870); condemnation of the Periphyseon, namely, that Eriugena’s • Vox spiritualis aquilae (Sermon on the Prologue to understanding of ‘nature’, in terms of cosmic reditus, was the Gospel of John; 870–872) considered to be pantheistic (cf. Haren 1985:80). Well aware • Commentarius in Iohannem (‘Commentary on the that his system could be interpreted as indeed pantheistic, Gospel of John’; 875–877) Eriugena was nevertheless convinced that the Neoplatonic • Carmina (‘Poems’; 850–877). emphasis on the transcendence of the One would counter that interpretation. Because he employed a jargon in several The majority of these works were systematically other contexts in the Periphyseon that indeed could insinuate disseminated by members of SPES over the past five a pantheistic affinity, the work in the end could, however, not decades, as indicated infra. escape the impression that it was fundamentally pantheistic. It was mainly on the basis of this skewed impression that the The founding (1970) of Society for work was finally condemned in 1225 by Pope Honorius III.5 the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies 5.As the objective of this article is not to present technical analyses of manuscript development in Eriugena’s oeuvre and the historical development of Eriugena’s and its contributions over the reception in the central and later Middle Ages, it does not dwell on these issues in the main text. After considering an anonymous peer reviewer’s valid and relevant comments in this regard (hereby with acknowledgement), Honorius course of five decades (2020) Augustodunensis’ (ca.1080–1154) Clavis Physicae (see Honorius Augustodunensis 1974) as Eriugena’s veiled 12th-century disseminator and the complexities After the expiration of the Index of Prohibited Books in the 1960s, surrounding the Paris Manuscript (see footnote 3) should be briefly addressed. Even and disseminations of and commentaries on the Periphyseon though the Periphyseon was, thus, already condemned by 1210, the work was known primarily through the Augustodunensian ‘paraphrase’ (Lahey 2020:448) and started circulating in the aftermath of early 20th-century ‘astute summary’ (Otten 2020a:189) of it in theClavis Physicae (written already circa 1125), whereby in its first part Augustodunensis (1974:1–315) summarises the first specialist analyses, such as the mentioned works of Cappuyns four volumes and in its second part he (Augustodunensis 1974:316–529) presents a treatise on the fifth volume of the Periphyseon. Notwithstanding Augustodunensis’ (1933) and Bett (1925), it became evident in Ireland itself that dissemination of the Periphyseon in the Clavis Physicae, the work was indeed (with few exceptions, e.g., Nicholas of Cusa’s engagement of it in the 15th century) not more systematic work ought to be done to comprehensively ‘read and studied much until the publication of its first print edition in1681by rehabilitate the legacy of this for centuries neglected Irish thinker. Thomas Gale, the original of which based on ms. Trinity College O.5.20 can be found in Cambridge’s Trinity College library’ (Otten 2020a:189). It was Gale’s edition that In 1970, the Society for the Promotion of Eriugena Studies was was put on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1684. Eriugena’s official condemnations can, thus, be nuanced by the creative ways that his thought still continued in some established with the sole objective to reappraise Eriugena’s circles from the 12th century onwards (cf. Kijewska 2020:349–386) and well into modernity, for example, in the phenomenological tradition (Moran 2014:601–636). significant contribution to the development of the Western For many years, the main edition of the Periphyseon was the Royal Irish edition (PL 122) edited by H.J. Floss in 1853 as De divisione naturae. The current history of ideas. With a guaranteed stipend of the critical edition isPeriphyseon , Volumes I–V, under the editorship of E.A. Jeauneau in Academy and a publication subsidy of The Dublin Institute of Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 161–165, Brepols, Turnhout. For translations, see I.P. Sheldon-Williams (ed. & transl. 1968, 1972, 1982) andJ.J. Advanced Studies, a massive undertaking was launched: all five O’Meara & I.P. Sheldon-Williams (in Jeauneau [ed.] 1995, 2003). For additional translations, seePeriphyseon (The Division of Nature), I.P. Sheldon-Williams (transl.), volumes of the Periphyseon were to be edited, translated and revised by J.J. O’Meara, 1987 (out of print), Montréal, Bellarmin & Washington, Dumbarton Oaks; and John the Scot, Periphyseon on the Division of Nature, M.L. 6.Eriugena’s commentary on The Celestial Hierarchy may very well have been the first Uhlfelder (transl.), J.A. Potter (intr.), 1976, reprint 2011, Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock. Latin Christian commentary on a non-scriptural writing (cf. McEvoy 1987:201).

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 5 of 13 Original Research annotated in English.7 The acclaimed Medieval specialists Inglis Sheldon-Williams,8 John O’Meara and Ludwig Bieler took the initiative in the creation of SPES at the occasion of the first international Eriugena conference in Dublin in July 1970, which was presented under the hefty title The Mind of Eriugena. By 1995, four of the five volumes were translated: The first three volumes9 were edited and translated by Sheldon-Williams, assisted by Ludwig Beier, with editorial intervention by John O’Meara after Sheldon-Williams’ death in 1973, again assisted by Beier. O’Meara’s contribution was extensive: he re-edited all Sheldon- Williams’ (handwritten) translations and annotations with regard to the first three volumes and had the work published under Sheldon-Williams’ editorship. O’Meara, henceforth, completed the translation and annotation of the fourth volume under the editorship of Edouard Jeauneau (ed. 1995), out of which was born one of the most distinguished Eriugena- monographies from Ireland itself (O’Meara’s Eriugena, 1988).10

The editing and translation of Volume V under the editorship of Jeauneau was completed in 2003. It is worth noting that the enigmatic Pope Benedict XVI presented Jeauneau with a papal coat of arms as a token of appreciation on the successful Source: Oldcurrencyexchange, n.d., O’Brien Banknote Guide: Five Pounds, Irish Banknote ‘B Series’ viewed n.d., from https://oldcurrencyexchange.com/2015/07/13/obrien-banknote conclusion of the project. Benedict XVI (Joseph Aloisius FIGURE 1: Scotus, Central Bank of Ireland’s £5, in use from 1976 to 1993.12 Ratzinger, b. 1927, pope from 2005 to 2013) himself was a bona fide Eriugena-researcher, as was confirmed by his assessment paintings of Eriugena were produced after 1225, graphics from of Eriugena’s significance in a general audience on Saint the first copies of manuscripts of the Periphyseon were recreated, Peter’s Square on Wednesday 10 June 2009.11 It is a painful yet resulting in a single, relatively realistic facial image of Eriugena, uplifting irony that a thinker whose primary text was for more which was printed on the Central Bank of Ireland’s £5 note, in than five centuries barred from church and society, burnt and put on the Index of Prohibited Books at last was rehabilitated in use up to 1993 (Figure 1). Featuring the single word Scotus (‘from the philosophical labour of a brilliant 21st-century pope.12 Ireland’), this creative neo-reception took care that a name not mentioned, a face not seen and a voice not heard for centuries After its inception, SPES immediately went to work to introduce could become visible and audible in Ireland and beyond. Eriugena thoroughly into the Irish public sphere. Because no Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies’ attempts to 7.It is nevertheless important to pertinently distinguish SPES’s work from the Dublin Institute’s support of Sheldon-Williams’ translation of the Periphyseon. This publish specialist outputs on Eriugena over the past five translation and SPES’ foundation in 1970 are clearly related but should bekept apart; rather, they ‘can be described as siblings in Eriugena’s revival’ (acknowledging decades are already bearing fruit in the quality of juxtaposed an anonymous reviewer’s comment in this regard). readings of Eriugena and other Neoplatonic thinkers, as 8.The other ‘SPES-members of the first hour’ (eds. Otten & Allen 2014:ii), Pádraig Ó Cléirigh, reflected in the most recent research (cf. Harrington 2020:64). Edouard Jeauneau, Werner Beierwaltes, Gustavo Piemonte and Breandán Ó Cíobháin, were pivotal figures in the first three decades of SPES’ work from 1970 to 2000. Relatively young as the Eriugena-niche still is, compared to

9.Referring to Sheldon-Williams’ (ed. & transl. 1968, 1972, 1982, 1995) groundbreaking that of John Duns Scotus or William of Ockham, for example, contributions. it has a bright future precisely because of SPES’ efforts: 10.Among the strengths of O’Meara’s monography is its translation of Eriugena’s Vox Eriugena certainly is no longer the (Otten & Allen 2014): spiritualis aquilae (Sermon on the Prologue to the Gospel of John; dated 870–872). However, three shortcomings of the work could be pointed out: ‘While O’Meara (1988:60[nt.26]) indicated that his discussion of Pseudo-Dionysius “is much [M]isunderstood Irish genius whose idiosyncrasies could give rise indebted” to R. Roques’s articles in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, he does not to false charges of heresy but should instead be regarded as an acknowledge that the discussion is a translation of these articles’. Secondly, ‘in his long summary of the Periphyseon O’Meara (1988:80[nt.1]) noted that “(M)uch use integral part of a longer list of Medieval intellectuals populating is made […] of I.P. Sheldon Williams’ translation,” but he does not acknowledge that this summary (in O’Meara 1988:80–154) is little more than anedit of Sheldon- the intellectual landscape of the Medieval West […]. (p. x) William’s translation’. Thirdly, ‘by ignoring the Periphyseon’s dialogue form’, O’Meara compressed an already dense text ‘into a highly technical treatise’ (with acknowledgement to an anonymous reviewer’s critical interpretation of and The rehabilitating efforts of SPES from July 1970 to 2014 irrefutable comments on O’Meara’s text). can be deduced from the published proceedings of its 11 11.For the full text of Benedict XVI’s assessment of Eriugena published with the 13 permission of Libreria Editrice Vaticana, see Guiu (2020a:454–457). conferences up to date:

12.The Central Bank of Ireland issued the Irish Pound ‘B Series’ banknotes in eight 13.SPES established a website (https://eriugenaspes.org/about/) in 2019 as a new different denominations in 1976, including this £5 note featuring Eriugena: on the means to spread the word about the revival in Eriugena scholarship. Although a obverse, the letter A from the start of Psalm 17 of thePsalter of Ricemarch (an 11th- short framework of its 11 conferences is provided in the website, it does not century Welsh illuminated psalter) was used against the Book of Durrow (the oldest provide any details about the contents of the proceedings nor the extensive extant complete illuminated insular Gospel book, with the manuscript present at contributions of individual SPES members. However, the individual contributions at Durrow Abbey by 916; now ms. A.4.5.[57], held at Trinity College, Dublin), while the every conference are now listed at https://www.ontology.co/biblio/eriugena- reverse featured an adaptation of animal and script extracts from the Book of Kells editions.htm (by Corrazon 2019:18–24). The author verified the correctness of (an illuminated manuscript Gospel book in Latin, ca.800, ms. A.I.[58], held at Trinity these listings from the published proceedings as such: rather than duplicate the College, Dublin). These ‘B Series’ banknotes were withdrawn from circulation individual contributions here, the reader is referred to the above link and page in 1993. Acknowledgement and copyright https://oldcurrencyexchange. range. The author’s inferences in the following paragraphs can be verified com/2015/07/13/obrien-banknote-guide-five-pounds-irish-banknote-b-series/. according to this information as well.

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 6 of 13 Original Research

Conference I: 14–18 July 1970 Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies, Chicago and Notre Dame, 18–20 October 1991, Proceedings published as: O’Meara, J.J. & Bieler, L. (eds.), 1973, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. The Mind of Eriugena, Papers of a Colloquium on Eriugena, Dublin, 14–18 July 1970, Irish University Press, Dublin. Conference IX: 07–10 June 1995

Conference II: 7–12 July 1975 Proceedings published as: Van Riel, G., Steel, C. & McEvoy, J. (eds.), 1996, Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Proceedings published as: Roques, R. (ed.), 1977, Jean Scot Hermeneutics, Proceedings of the IX International Colloquium Erigène et l’histoire de la philosophie, Actes du II Colloque of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies held at International, Laon, 7–12 juillet 1975, Éditions du Centre Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 7–10 June 1995, Leuven national de la recherche scientifique, Paris. University Press, Louvain.

Conference III: 27–30 August 1979 Conference X: 16–20 August 2000

Proceedings published as: Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1980, Eriugena. Proceedings published as: McEvoy, J. & Dunne, M. (eds.), 2002, Studien zu seinen Quellen, Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie History and Eschatology in John Scottus Eriugena and His Time, der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse , Vorträge des Proceedings of the X International Conference of the Society III. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Freiburg im for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies held at Maynooth and Breisgau, 27–30 August 1979, Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Dublin, 16–20 August 2000, Leuven University Press, Louvain.

Conference IV: 28 August–02 September 1983 Conference XI: 9–12 November 2011

Proceedings published as: Allard, G-H. (ed.), 1986, Jean Scot Proceedings published as: Otten, W. & Allen, M.I. (eds.), 2014, Écrivain, Actes du IV Colloque international, Montreal, Eriugena and Creation, Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 28 aout – 2 septembre 1983, Vrin, Paris. 68, Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Eriugenian Studies, held in honor of Édouard Jeauneau, Conference V: 26–30 August 1985 Chicago, 9–12 November 2011, Brepols, Turnhout (cf. https://eriugenaspes.org/about/). Proceedings published as: Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1987, Eriugena Redivivus: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte Seines Denkens Im Mittelalter Und Im Übergang Zur Neuzeit, Abhandlungen Der Heidelberger The above conference proceedings of SPES indicate the Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische commitment of the members of the society, over a period of Klasse, Vorträge des V. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, more than four decades, to disseminate and illuminate the Werner-Reimers-Stiftung, Bad Homburg, 26–30 August 1985, thought of a Medieval thinker who, up to the 1960s, was Carl Winter, Heidelberg. effectively absent in modern Medieval research. In addition, SPES is evidently an international academic society which Conference VI: 11–14 October 1985 transcends its initial Irish embeddedness, with contributions at these conferences presented in English, French, German Proceedings published as: Leonardi, C. (ed.), 1989, Giovanni and Italian, hosted on both continents across the Atlantic, Scoto Nel Suo Tempo: L’organizzazione Del Sapere in Età with Ireland nevertheless at its idea-historical and Carolingia, Atti del VI. Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, geographical centre. 11–14 ottobre 1987, Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto. Although every presentation at the 11 conferences was unique in its own way and every participant’s offering of Conference VII: 26–29 July 1989 course appreciated, the above conference proceedings enable an isolation of key historical figures in SPES’ functioning, Proceedings published as: Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1990, Begriff with specific reference to consistent outputs at those und Metapher: Sprachform des Denkens bei Eriugena, conferences. The following members presented four or more Abhandlungen Der Heidelberger Akademie Der papers at the 11 conferences or were additionally involved in Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Vorträge the organisation thereof: Guy-H Allard, Werner Beierwaltes, des VII. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Werner- Deirdre Carabine, John Contreni, Marta Cristiani, Giulio Reimers-Stiftung, Bad Homburg, 26–29 Juli 1989, Carl d’Onofrio, Donald Duclow, Stephen Gersh, Michael Herren, Winter, Heidelberg. Édouard Jeauneau, Claudio Leonardi, James McEvoy, Bernard McGinn, Dominic O’Meara, John O’Meara, Conference VIII: 18–20 October 1991 Willemien Otten, Gustavo Piemonte, Gangolf Schrimpf and Carlos Steel. Other eminent 20th-century and contemporary Proceedings published as: McGinn, B. & Otten, W. (eds.), 1994, scholars of Medieval philosophy who contributed to the Eriugena: East and West, Papers of the VIII International conferences on a somewhat lesser scale include Arthur

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 7 of 13 Original Research

Hilary Armstrong, Yves Christe, Robert Crouse, Peter between theology-dialectic-philosophy, the thinkers and works Dronke, Paul Dutton, Alois Haas, Agnieszka Kijewska, Hans that have influenced the thought of Eriugena, and finally the Liebeschütz, Goulven Madec, John Marenbon, Jack Marler, impact of Eriugena’s ideas in the Middle Ages and modernity. Rosamond McKitterick, Dermot Moran, Jean Pépin and Eric (pp. 1–2) Perl. Ludwig Bieler was the society’s first honorary president, The renowned publisher Brill and the main editor of the followed by presidents John O’Meara (1970–1975), René series ‘Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition’, Roques (1975–1979), Werner Beierwaltes (1979–1983), Guy-H Christopher M. Bellitto, must be commended for yet another Allard (1983–1987), Claudio Leonardi (1987–1991), Bernard publication from this magnificent series, which brought, McGinn (1991–1996), Carlos Steel (1996–2000) and James once again, a marginalised Medieval thinker from the McEvoy (2000–2010). Willemien Otten has headed SPES with discursive shadows of the history of ideas into mainstream solemn efficiency since 2011, assisted by Ernesto Sergio research in Medieval philosophy. A Companion to John Scottus Mainoldi.14 Eriugena explicitly conforms to SPES’ main objective, namely, to highlight the unique contributions of Eriugena as a ‘multi- The thematic comprehensiveness of the dissemination of faceted thinker, teacher and writer’ (Guiu 2020c:1) and can in Eriugena’s thought in SPES’ labour is striking, including this sense be connected to SPES’ work. juxtapositions (with, amongst others, Augustine, Pseudo- Dionysius, Maximus Confessor, both Hugo and Richard of A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena consists of four parts: (1) Saint Victor, Martianus Capella, Marius Victorinus, a contextualisation of Eriugena’s life, influences and work; Hildegard von Bingen, Robert Grosseteste, , (2) perspectives on the Periphyseon as such; (3) the lesser Nicholas of Cusa, Honorius Augustodunensis, Schopenhauer, known and pertinently theological implications of Eriugena’s Hegel and Wittgenstein), extensive commentaries on the works (titled ‘The Other Eriugena’); and (4) Eriugena’s Periphyseon, Eriugena’s Greek and Neoplatonist sources, influence on developments in the Western history of ideas metaphysics, literary analyses, negative theology, mystical (notably on the 12th century before the final condemnation of theology, Christology, predestination and human freedom, Periphyseon, resonances of the Periphyseon in the Renaissance causation, creation, eschatology, Eriugena’s metaphors, and the reception of Eriugena in modern scholarship). theophany, anthropology, psychology, hermeneutics, translations, poetry, mathematical concepts, musicology, art, With regard to the contextualisation of Eriugena in the first socio-historical analyses of the Carolingian period and the section of the volume (cf. Guiu 2020c:2), Alfred Siewers’ Carolingian schools, Eastern patristic thought and its (2020:9–30) ‘Eriugena’s Irish Background’ argues (2020:9) influence on Eriugena, metaphors and symbolism, the that Eriugena should first and foremost be engaged from his philosophical importance of grammar and Eriugenian Irish context, even though, for a number of reasons Siewers ontology – to isolate just a few of the prominent strands that points out, the tendency in the reception has been to manifested itself over the course of the 11 conferences. The ‘discourage active emphasis on his Irishness’. Siewers date for Conference XII of the Society for the Promotion of (2020:9) consequently ‘attempts to outline a more Eriugenian Studies has not yet been confirmed. cosmopolitan textual milieu for (Eriugena’s) work, both in terms of his native culture and his work’s related Eastern A Companion to John Scottus Mediterranean affinities’. John Contreni’s (2020:31–63) ‘John Eriugena, Brill, Leiden, 2020 Scottus, Nutritor, and the Liberal Arts’ surveys the intellectual setting at the Carolingian court from the 840s onwards, In the meantime, SPES’ work over the past five decades is indicating that Eriugena’s most significant contribution was implicitly extended, if not celebrated, in a brilliant editorial that he advanced the liberal arts into philosophy pura et vera, work, A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena, published in the as true wisdom, in his fusion of the speculative systems of year15 of SPES’ 50-year jubileum by Brill in Leiden, under the Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus Confessor and Augustine. editorship of Adrian Guiu. Although the work is expressly Michael Harrington’s (2020:64–92) extensive contribution, not a formal publication of the society itself, it is clear from ‘Eriugena and the Neoplatonic Tradition’, accentuates the acknowledgements, abbreviations for commonly cited secondary sources and introduction (cf. Guiu 2020c:1–6) that Eriugena’s thought as a beacon of Neoplatonic reception and the work is highly indebted to the SPES’ conferences, as neo-interpretation in the Latin West, which utilised several expounded supra. The work focuses on the: Neoplatonic sources (Gregory of Nissa and Maximus in particular, starting, however, with Eriugena’s understanding [P]recedents of Eriugenian scholarship by mapping extant and of Plato himself, whilst stressing that Eriugena never potential new perspectives on Eriugena’s work, including the Christological dimension of his thought, the correspondence referred to the original Neoplatonists or Porphyry as such, Harrington 2020:65) in its attempt to re-address 14.A brief overview of the history of its administration can be viewed at https:// eriugenaspes.org/about/, while a list of the current and former members of SPES some fundamental philosophical questions associated with can be viewed at https://eriugenaspes.org/members/ (accessed on 12 April 2021). Christian dogma and tradition in the 9th century. Via these 15.Although the official date for publication is indicated as 21 October 2019 for the thinkers Eriugena: e-book and 24 October 2019 for the hardback (per https://brill.com/view/ title/39179), the copyright page in the hardback (ISBN 978-90-04-38267-1) states [H]ad access to the major themes of Neoplatonism: its division of ‘Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands’ and is presented here as such. a sensible from an intelligible reality, and its division of the

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 8 of 13 Original Research

intelligible reality into the now familiar components of the as a mystic and theologian and, therefore, evades these One, the Intellect and the Soul […] the Neoplatonists could single clusters of occupation. However, in terms of ‘vocation’ provide him with the position that the world we experience (Gavin 2020:134) Eriugena could best be described as a through our senses is dependent for its existence on a world ‘theologian’, where theologia and theoria are integrated in ‘a we experience through the intellect. (pp. 64–65) journey that unites the speculative and contemplative’ (Gavin 2020:135). For Eriugena, Gavin argues, this journey Harrington (cf. Guiu 2020c:2), henceforth, argues that the ‘has a very specific form and guide’, which is Christ, the single idea defining Eriugena’s originality is that all creatures incarnate Word – because only Christ ‘unites in man both the have their being completely in God, indicating that Eriugena’s speculative and participative’ (Gavin 2020:135). Gavin analysis of the relation of cause to effect brought him to the stresses that Eriugena is often read and discussed from a conclusion that all creatures have their formal being in the modern perspective as a ‘philosopher’ who excelled in primordial causes (that is, in God) as well as that the synthesising Greek theology and Latin metaphysics, whilst perceptible effects of these creatures are real within God: this he (as by far the majority of Medieval thinkers from the 5th to conclusion, of course, negates the fundamental Augustinian the 15th century) was ‘by vocation’ a theologian, in Eriugena’s divide between creator and creature, thereby shifting the case, thus, a fundamentally Christ-centred one who established concept of the soul’s being from a lesser spiritual presupposed the mediation of Christ in the human relation to being, dependent on the divine ideas for its reality, to an God. Gavin isolates the Christological features in Eriugena’s effective equal of those perfect intelligible . Harrington thought, thereby reappraising Eriugena’s profound Christian shows that Eriugena, in this sense, employed Neoplatonic identity, in an implicit critique of the repeated theological reasoning precisely to transcend standardised Neoplatonist condemnations of the Periphyseon up to 1225. This accessible frames of reference (cf. Guiu 2020c:2). The last offering in the introduction to the theological features and implications of volume’s first section, Christophe Erismann’s (2020:93–110) the Periphyseon significantly associates the incarnation of the ‘Between Greek and Latin: Eriugena on Logic’, takes its Word in Christ with the fulfilment of the divine ideas in all premise from the ‘close and mutually beneficial relation creatures, thus as a ‘quasi-Incarnation’ (Guiu 2020c:3) which, between logic and theology’, which was in Eriugena’s time when comprehended, enhances a ‘rational understanding of already ‘an established tradition of rational theology’ creation’ (Guiu 2020c:3) where the fallen intellect is enabled (Erismann 2020:93). Erismann consequently juxtapositions to understand the ultimate concord of faith and reason in Eriugena’s thought with the Latin logical tradition of theology. It was for this very reason that Pope Benedict XVI Porhpyry, Martianus Capella and Boethius and provides an (see Guiu 2020a:454–457), as previously mentioned, in-depth analysis of how Eriugena presented a fusion of this rehabilitated Eriugena’s theology in the life and work of the tradition with the Greek logical tradition, as it was carried church, characterising it as ‘the most evident attempt to forward in the early Middle Ages by Maximus. As a logical express the expressible of the inexpressible God based solely realist Eriugena should in terms of Erismann’s reading be on the mystery of the Word made flesh’ (Guiu’s reference considered an authentic developer of both traditions in his 2020c:3 [fn.1 as well]). In proximity to Gavin’s reading, unique amalgamation of exegesis, logic and metaphysics renowned Medieval scholar Bernard McGinn (2020:154–188) (cf. Guiu 2020c:2). presents the Periphyseon as ‘hexaemeral commentary’, focusing on Eriugena’s ‘exegesis in practice’ by using his The second section in the volume (cf. Guiu 2020c:2–4), thus, interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis as deals with the Periphyseon as such. With her ‘A Thematic example – because these three chapters feature extensively in Introduction to and Outline of the Periphyseon for the the Periphyseon. McGinn (2020:154) indicates that it is, in fact, Alumnus’, Elena Lloyd-Sidle (2020:113–133) provides an not possible to sharply divide between Eriugena’s exegetical accessible summary of the complex argumentation in the theory and practice (as it is, e.g., possible with Augustine Periphyseon for a non-specialised readership, including a with reference to his De doctrina christiana), with the thematic outline of the work. She also considers the close consequence that his ‘norms for reading the Bible’ have to be relation between style and content in the Periphyseon, given distilled from his hexaemeral commentary. In addition, the that for Eriugena ‘all levels and aspects of reality are Periphyseon (McGinn 2020): essentially linked’, noting that (Lloyd-Sidle 2020): [T]eaches that it is within the very work of struggling to [O]ne gets the sense that Eriugena is playfully expressing the understand what the Bible has to say about the nature of God, content through his method […] (T)he reader is never allowed to humanity, and the cosmos that the ‘return’ (reditus) to union rest too long on one aspect of reality, but is always reminded that with God is affected. (p. 154) one aspect comes from and leads to others. (p. 114) McGinn, henceforward, shows that Eriugena’s exegesis of John Gavin’s (2020:134–153) ‘A Theologian’s Itinerary: John Genesis employed both Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa Scottus Eriugena’s Christological Ascent’ resists by point of from the East, and Ambrose and Augustine from the West, in departure the modernist tendency to rigidly distinguish his own reflections on creation. Eriugena’s fourfold division between philosophy, mysticism, literary theory or exegesis of being, as discussed earlier, enables him to use the relevant and theology, thereby tending to afford Eriugena a single passages in Genesis to stress the close relation between the area of specialisation. Eriugena was as much a philosopher creating agent (‘created being that creates’) and the created

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 9 of 13 Original Research subject (‘created being that does not create’). McGinn is to procure the intellectual identity with the first subject of highlights Eriugena’s cautious approach in his interpretation every truth, namely, the divine essence engaged in the perfect of the words of Genesis: ‘just like creation itself, Scripture knowing act (cf. Guiu 2020c:4); in other words, ‘the true being reflects the structure of God’s thought within itself’ of any given creature is removed from the mind’s grasp (Guiu 2020c:3), an illustration of a basic feature of because it is rooted in its creator’ (Guiu 2020c:4). Eriugena’s thought, namely, that reason and Christian dogma are ‘commensurate’ and fundamentally ‘in concord’ The third section of A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena (Guiu 2020c:3). Current SPES President Willemien Otten (cf. Guiu 2020c:4–5), thus, engages the ‘lesser known’ or (2020a:189–212), in her ‘Suspended between Cosmology and ‘Other Eriugena’. In the 9th century, when the ‘Latin fathers Anthropology: Natura’s Bond in Eriugena’s Periphyseon’, were the only Christian authorities’ (Guiu 2020c:4–5) in the introduces the relevance of the relation between Eriugena’s West, apart from the Biblical texts, Eriugena distinguished cosmology and anthropology by initially focusing on the himself precisely in terms of his commitment to provide a way the condemnation of the Periphyseon in 1225: distinctive fusion of Greek and Latin patristic theology [S]everely hindered Eriugena’s integration into a larger history and to disseminate Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus Confessor of thought, not only medieval but also beyond; for while certain and other Eastern sources, such as Epiphanius of Salamis, elements of his cosmology and anthropology are undoubtedly the Cappadocians and . His translations and present in medieval thought, their presence cannot be attributed interpretations of these sources ‘opened for him philosophical primarily to Eriugena’s particular articulation. (Otten 2020a:190) and theological vistas unavailable in Latin theology’ (Barstad 2020:267). Against this backdrop, Joel Barstad’s (2020:267–295) Otten then scrutinises the fundamental concept of Natura ‘Eriugena as Translator and Interpreter of the Greek Fathers’ showing that ‘Eriugena’s understanding of the relation of provides insight into the complexity of Eriugena’s creator to creation, as well as the role of human reason in amalgamation of East and West, of Greek and Latin theology, completing this relation’, centred around this concept (Guiu in which Dionysius, Maximus and the Cappadocians are 2020c:3–4). Eriugena’s anthropology is for Otten crucial, constantly alternated with Augustine: because with the creation of humanity reditus, the return to Throughout Eriugena’s progressive encounter with the Greeks, the creator also begins. Eriugena’s anthropology is in this Augustine’s speculations regarding eternity, time, and history, sense not only ‘teleological’, in the sense that it intrinsically in relation to the single act by which God created everything all points towards the conclusion of creation but also the together and at once, remain the starting point for Eriugena’s medium by which reditus can be realised. Humanity’s reason, thought on the Creator-creature relation. (Barstad 2020:267) thus, plays a decisive part in completing the emanational process of created Natura’s completion in its return to the With Augustine constantly in the picture as a sort of tallying creator.16 Giulio D’Onofrio’s (2020:213–240) ‘The speculative presence from the West, Eriugena’s interpretation of creation system of John Scottus Eriugena and the tradition of Vera nevertheless became infused with the concept of theophany,17 Philosophia’ departs from what could be considered as one of a sensical confirmation of the presence of God, especially Eriugena’s fundamental epistemological considerations: with regard to his understanding of matter and corporality. ‘[t]rue knowledge […] produces an indissoluble unity – and Barstad (2020:268) shows that even within the context of the therefore a complete identity – between the substantial dominance of this ‘Greek’ concept, it would not be correct to reality of the subject and that of the object’: this coming deduce that Eriugena ‘adopted a simple, partisan loyalty to together of the knowing subject and the known object in a Greek theology over Latin’. Rather, by establishing an single realm is, according to Eriugena, ‘the prerogative of the Augustinian platform prior to his engagement with the purus intellectus: “The pure intellect is that which becomes Greek sources, which provided him with a ‘core which his what it knows”’ (D’Onofrio 2020:213). Against this major Greek sources enable(d) him to defend and develop’, background, D’Onofrio (2020) investigates Eriugena’s Eriugena stepped forward as ‘an original thinker and creative inquiry into the intellect’s understanding of other (‘angelic’) interpreter of the several traditions to which he adds his creatures and the role of (co-)participation in this regard: voice’ (Barstad 2020:268). Precisely within the context of When two intelligences […] communicate in a single language theophany, editor Adrian Guiu’s (2020b:296–325) own that both understand, they question, they examine and they contribution to the volume, apart from his eloquent know one another. In this way they acquire a shared introduction, ‘Eriugena reads Maximus Confessor: comprehension of the same object. Each subject of true Christology as Cosmic Theophany’, elaborates on how knowledge thus becomes a single entity with either the other dealing with Maximus’ legacy had as a ‘kairotic moment’ subjects who participate in the knowledge, or with the object (Guiu 2020b:296) a profound impact on Eriugena’s itself that they know. (pp. 213–214) understanding of the role of the human being as the ‘workshop of creation’ (Guiu 2020c:5) and his reflections on Eriugena comes to the conclusion that reason alone is unable 17.For the way Eriugena synthesises Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius regarding to reach a true and accurate presentation of the fundamental theophany, see Eriugena (1996–2003, Periphyseon III:685A; Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 163:94); Otten (2013:938–941); Hankey (1998:125–160) reality of things and that the only way to understand nature and D’Onofrio (1994:115–140). Eriugena’s teachings on theophanies may also be considered to be a ‘key reason why the Periphyseon was increasingly considered 16.Otten’s (2020b) recent illumination of Eriugena via Augustine and Maximusin suspect’: see the 1241 and 1244 condemnations of the University of Paris several gripping expositions in Thinking Nature and the Nature of Thinking: From (Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Volume I, #128, [ed. Denifle 1889]; for an Eriugena to Emerson (Stanford University Press, 2020) should in this context be explanation of these, see Tugwell 1988:51–52; with acknowledgement of an mentioned as well. anonymous peer reviewer’s comment in this regard).

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 10 of 13 Original Research creation via his reading, in the footsteps of Basil the Great’s Hermeneutics in a Biblical context’ presents an introduction hexaemeral interpretation, that is, of the first three chapters to the theoretical aspects of Eriugena’s Biblical hermeneutics of Genesis in particular. Significantly Guiu focuses on (although, as previously mentioned, a rigid distinction Eriugena’s Christology, still a rather neglected aspect of his between ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ exegesis in Eriugena’s legacy, by arguing that the reconciliation of anthropological frame cannot be sustained): for him, exegesis involves, as and Christological vistas provides a form of hermeneutic Guiu (2020b:297) earlier in the volume showed, an attempt to stability in Eriugena’s work. Guiu (2020b:296–297) does this ‘read’ the ‘two books’ written ‘by God’: the ‘book of scripture’ by isolating three ideas of Maximus that he considers to be at and the ‘book of nature’ (or creation), pointing towards a the core of Eriugena’s thought: (1) the anthropology of the hermeneutic that includes logic, physics, theology and officina omnium which Guiu (2020b:296–297) isolates as central philosophy. Kavanagh (2020) departs from what she clearly in the Periphyseon, which points to the dialogical ‘spiritual considers as a somewhat prejudiced understanding of exercise of training and conversation through the liberal arts Eriugena as the ‘great isolated dialectician’ and only in order to contemplate nature in the right way in order to systematic philosopher from the Carolingian period in the achieve a unified vision of creation’, resulting in Eriugena’s West, yet in that ‘systematic’ regard heavily indebted to ‘grand attempt of reading the two books in which the divine Pseudo-Dionysius, whilst the: is theophanically displayed (namely) creation and scripture’ [C]ulture of Biblical exegesis that surrounded hom is often (Guiu 2020b:296–297); (2) Eriugena’s inventive method perceived to have been derivative, largely unphilosophical, (physiologia) in the Periphyseon, whereby natural philosophy lacking in any real theological interest, concerned only with and exegesis are used reciprocally and ultimately fused in a questions of a devotional or perhaps legal nature. (p. 326) single orientation, has its roots also in Maximus; and (3) the Maximian notion of the divine revelation in Christ as a cosmic Kavanagh counters this common reception of Eriugena by mediation and unification of creation. Guiu (2020b:298–325), thoroughly investigating both the Occident (in the henceforth, argues that Maximus’ cosmic incarnation contemporary Western approaches of the 9th century, ‘constitutes the ultimate horizon of Eriugena’s theophanic Western patristics and the arts curriculum) and Byzantine creation’ (although the notion of theophany is originally (particularly the dialectical method of Dionysius and the Dionysian, it is ‘enhanced through Maximus’ incarnational cosmology of Maximus) sources of Eriugena’s exegesis. After cosmology’; Guiu 2020b:297). Guiu, thus, takes up the a survey of what she considers to be the most relevant difficult task of addressing the question how ‘the centrality of literature relating to Eriugenian exegesis as a ‘relatively Christology and of the incarnation can be harmonized with recent development’ (Kavanagh 2020:326; including inter alia other aspects of the Periphyseon’ (Guiu 2020b:297). Tackling De Lubac, McGinn, Otten and Marler) and thoroughly the difficult theme of predestination with its many and acknowledging the impact of SPES’ conferences in providing disagreeing versions in the history of theology, the current impetus to the formation of this literature (especially secretary of SPES, Ernesto Mainoldi (2020:241–266), in his Conference IX of June 1995, which dealt with hermeneutics ‘Eriugena’s Intervention in the Debate on Predestination’, specifically; Kavanagh 2020:327[fn.2]), Kavanagh (2020:328ff.) argues that Eriugena’s earlier involvement in the (in)famous provides an own analysis of the function and character of debate initiated by ’s advisor, Archbishop exegesis in Eriugena’s oeuvre in general. of Rheims (806–842) and engaged by the Saxon monk Gottschalk of Orbais (ca.808–868) regarding the latter’s The fourth and last section of the volume (cf. Guiu 2020c:5–6) teaching of twofold predestination (gemina praedestinatio; that explores Eriugena’s impact on developments in the later is, some people are created to be saved and others to be Western history of ideas, from the early scholastic period of damned) and its relation to free will and which around 851 the 12th century well into early modernity. It was especially manifested in Eriugena’s De Predestinatione indicate that in 12th-century France that Eriugena’s philosophical Eriugena already had grounded his theological position and theology had an effect, before the final condemnation of the carved out a rather problematic position for himself almost a Periphyseon in 1225. Agniezka Kijewska (2020:349–386; decade before work on the Periphyseon commenced. In a ‘Eriugena’s Influence on the 12th century’) traces meticulous analysis of Eriugena’s text, Mainoldi shows why Eriugena’s influence to his veiled disseminator Honorius the reaction against Eriugena (including that of Hincmar) Augustodunensis, Hugo of St Victor and Richard of St was so concentrated: although Eriugena pertinently Victor, Suger of Saint-Denis, Thierry and the School of stipulated Gottschalk’s skewed interpretation of Augustine’s Chartres, and John of Salisbury, to mention a few. Not only position, he also presented his own and unique account of the Periphyseon but also Eriugena’s translation of and the relation between sin and human nature and his resistance commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum and the sermon and against the notion of eternal damnation. For Eriugena, his commentary on the Gospel of John are singled out as association between the eternal, uncreated goodness of God important sources for the development of scholastic thought and created human nature, and his intimate relation of all in the 12th century. Kijewska notes that Eriugena’s influence created beings to God’s eternal understanding (as later was subtle and not explicit: however, some echoes in early thoroughly explicated in the Periphyseon), was just too scholastic thought are unmistakeably Eriugenian. This is compelling and potent as to disqualify the permanent also stressed in David Albertson’s reading (2020:387–418; annihilation of human identity in eternal inferno. ‘Echoes of Eriugena in Renaissance Philosophy: Negation, Catherine Kavanagh’s (2020:326–345) ‘Eriugena the Exegete: Theophany, Anthropology’), in which Eriugena’s influence

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 11 of 13 Original Research is traced in the 14th-century Meister Eckhart (ca.1260–1328) of A Companion to John Scottus Eriugena in 2020, as and the 15th-century Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), the concisely discussed supra. The article attempted to last Medieval philosopher or Gilsonian ‘gatekeeper of contribute to SPES’ 50-year jubileum by summarising its modernity’ on the doorstep of the Renaissance. The conference outputs over the past five decades as well as Dominican Eckhart, himself posthumously condemned in associating the society’s work to this particular 1329, and particularly Cusa’s engagements with and indeed publication, thereby furthering its laborious efforts and his indebtedness to Eriugena are indicated as fundamental specialist research outputs to a broader, non-specialised in the development of their mystical theologies. The readership. respected Eriugena specialist Dermot Moran’s (2020:419–446; also see Moran 1989, 1990, 2008) ‘The Reception of Eriugena It should be clear that the Society for the Promotion of in Modernity: A Critical Appraisal of Eriugena’s Dialectical Eriugena Studies has indeed done justice to its name and Philosophy of Infinite Nature’ traces the reception of honoured its initial objectives: from July 1970 it has Eriugena well into modernity, with specific reference to methodically linked Eriugena scholars globally and Thomas Gale (1636–1702) who made the first printing of the promoted Eriugenian studies on a massive scale, with Periphyseon in 1681 and the exposition of Eriugenian ideas in few societal equivalents in recent Medieval scholarship. post-Hegelian contexts. After providing an overview of the complex evolution of the manuscripts of the Periphyseon The proceedings of the conferences under the auspices of ‘from the time that it emerged in Eriugena’s scriptorium SPES and the publication of Guiu’s editorial work in 2020 workshop’ (Moran 2020:420) into the Middle Ages, have significantly contributed to a still relatively young Renaissance and modernity, Moran discusses two Eriugenian but already established erudition regarding Eriugena’s ideas that are shown to have had productive outcomes in its contributions as an Irish philosopher, Christian theologian, post-Hegelian application, inter alia in phenomenology,18 formidable translator and unique exegete from the namely, his presumed idealism and the dialectical element Carolingian period in the early Middle Ages. in his thinking, both appreciated in Hegelian and post- Hegelian studies because of their flexibility and inclusive Acknowledgements rationality. The eminent historian of ideas, Stephen Lahey The author is an associate of the Center for the History of (2020:447–453; ‘Eriugena’s Condemnation and his Idealism’), concludes the editorial work by isolating the probable Philosophy and Science (CHPS), Radboud University reason why the Periphyseon was finally condemned in 1225, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. namely, that this primary text and its author were linked to the rather notorious teachings of Amalric of Bène (d.1204/7) Competing interests in 1210 (perhaps best encapsulated19 in omnia sunt Deus The author declares that he has no financial or personal [‘God is all’]; omnia unum, quia quidquid est, est Deus relationships which may have inappropriately influenced [‘all things are one, because whatever is, is God’], leading him in writing this article. to the preliminary condemnation of the Periphyseon in the same year. Amalric and his associates were clearly pantheistic and Eriugena’s disappearance from the still Author’s contributions early phase of scholasticism precisely during this decade I declare that I am the sole author of this research article. has long been taken to result from some association between him and Amalric. The final banning of the reading of the Periphyseon and Eriugena’s other works saves the Ethical considerations translation of and commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum This article followed all ethical standards for a research (which was what Eckhart and Cusa had access to) followed without direct contact with human or animal subjects. in 1225. As editor Guiu (2020c:6) finally notes, the ‘aura of has remained with Eriugena into the present’. Funding information This research received no specific grant from any funding Concluding remarks agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. This article chartered the development of SPES over the past five decades and connected it to the publication Data availability 18.Donald F. Duclow’s (1977) article on ‘Divine Nothingness and Self-Creation’ in Eriugena vis-à-vis Heidegger’s conviction that when raising the question of Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new nothingness ‘we stand in a tradition’ which ‘must be taken into account’ (Duclow 1977:109[fn.2]) could well be read in close proximity to Moran’s analysis of the data were created or analysed in this study. phenomenological application of Eriugena’s thought. Also, see Duclow’s (2006) critical juxtapositioning of Eriugena, Eckhart and Cusa. 19.For the list consisting of the 14 ‘errors’ of Amalric’s followers compiled in Garneri Disclaimer of Rupefort’s Contra Amaurianos in 1210, the year of Amalric’s trial, see Lahey (2020:447–448). Lahey (2020:448) stresses that although ‘[i]t has become widely The author declares that opinions presented in this accepted that Eriugena’s disappearance is connected to Amalric’s condemnation […] the disappearance may be better explained by the concurrent antipathy article are the author’s own and do not reflect the opinions towards philosophical thought at Paris with the appearance of Aristotelian ideas’ in the early 13th century. of any institution or organisation.

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 12 of 13 Original Research

Harrington, L.M., 2004, A thirteenth-century textbook of mystical theology at References the University of Paris. The mystical theology of Dionysius the Areopagite in Eriugena’s Latin translation with the Scholia translated by Anastasius Albertson, D., 2020, ‘Echoes of Eriugena in renaissance philosophy: Negation, the Librarian and excerpts from Eriugena’s Periphyseon, Peeters, Paris. theophany, anthropology’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, Harrington, L.M., 2020, ‘Eriugena and the Neoplatonic tradition’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A pp. 387–418, Brill, Leiden. companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 64–92, Brill, Leiden. Allard, G.-H. (ed.), 1986, Jean Scot Écrivain, Actes du IV Colloque international, Honorius Augustodunensis, 1974, Clavis Physicae, P. Lucentini (ed.), Temi e Testi 21, Montreal, 28 aout – 2 septembre 1983, Vrin, Paris. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome. Barstad, J.I., 2020, ‘Eriugena as translator and interpreter of the Greek fathers’, in Hyman, A., Walsh, J.J. & Williams, T. (eds.), 2010, Philosophy in the middle ages: A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 267–295, Brill, Leiden. The Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions, Hackett, Indianapolis. Eriugena. Studien zu seinen Quellen Abhandlungen der Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1980, , Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon (De Divisione Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jeauneau, E.A., (ed.), 1995, Vorträge des III. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Freiburg im Breisgau, 27– Naturae), Liber Quartus, transl. J.J. O’Meara & I.P. Sheldon-Williams, M.A. Zier 30 August 1979, Carl Winter, Heidelberg. (co-ed.), School of Celtic Studies & Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin. Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1987, Eriugena Redivivus: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte Seines Jeauneau, E.A. (ed.), 2003, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon (De Divisione Denkens Im Mittelalter Und Im Übergang Zur Neuzeit, Abhandlungen Der Naturae), Liber Quintus, transl. J.J. O’Meara & I.P. Sheldon-Williams, M.A. Zier Heidelberger Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, (co-ed.), School of Celtic Studies & Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Vorträge des V. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Werner-Reimers-Stiftung, Dublin. Bad Homburg, 26–30 August 1985, Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Kavanagh, C., 2020, ‘Eriugena the Exegete: Hermeneutics in a Biblical context’, in A. Beierwaltes, W. (ed.), 1990, Begriff und Metapher: Sprachform des Denkens bei Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 326–345, Brill, Leiden. Eriugena, Abhandlungen Der Heidelberger Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Kijewska, A., 2020, ‘Eriugena’s influence on the 12th century’, in A. Guiu (ed.), Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Vorträge des VII. Internationalen Eriugena- A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 349–386, Brill, Leiden. Colloquiums, Werner-Reimers-Stiftung, Bad Homburg, 26–29 Juli 1989, Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Lahey, S., 2020, ‘Eriugena’s condemnation and his idealism’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 447–453, Brill, Leiden. Bett, H., 1925, Johannes Scottus Erigena: A study in medieval philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leonardi, C. (ed.), 1989, Giovanni Scoto Nel Suo Tempo: L’organizzazione Del Sapere in Età Carolingia, Atti del VI. Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 11–14 Beukes, J., 2020, Middeleeuse Filosofie, vols 1 & II, Akademia, Pretoria. ottobre 1987, Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto. Cappuyns, M., 1933, Jean Scot Érigène. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée, Abbaye du Mont Lloyd-Sidle, E.M., 2020, ‘A thematic introduction to and outline of the Periphyseon César, Louvain. for the Alumnus’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, Carabine, D., 2000, John Scottus Eriugena, Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 113–133, Brill, Leiden. Contreni, J.J., 2020, ‘John Scottus, Nutritor, and the liberal arts’, in A. Guiu (ed.), Luibheid, C. (transl.), 1987, Pseudo-Dionysius: The complete works, P. Rorem (intr.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 31–63, Brill, Leiden. Paulist Press, New York, NY. Copleston, F.C., 1993, A history of philosophy volume II, medieval philosophy, Mainoldi, E.S., 2020, ‘Eriugena’s intervention in the debate on predestination’, in A. Doubleday, New York, NY. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 241–266, Brill, Leiden. Corrazon, R., 2019, ‘The works of Eriugena: Editions and translations’, pp. 1–25, Marenbon, J., 1981, From the circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre, Cambridge viewed 12 March 2021, from https://www.ontology.co/biblio/eriugena-editions. University Press, Cambridge. htm. Marenbon, J., 1988. Early medieval philosophy (488–1150). An introduction, Costambeys, M., Innes, M. & MacLean, S., 2014, The Carolingian world, Cambridge Routledge, New York, NY. Medieval Textbooks, Cambridge. McEvoy, J., 1987, ‘Ioannes Scottus Eriugena and Robert Grosseteste’, in W. D’Onofrio, G., 1994, ‘The concordance of Augustine and Dionysius: Toward a Beierwaltes (ed.), Eriugena Redivivus: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte Seines Denkens hermeneutic of disagreement of patristic sources in John the Scot’s Periphyseon’, Im Mittelalter Und Im Übergang Zur Neuzeit, Abhandlungen Der Heidelberger in B. McGinn & W. Otten (eds.), Eriugena: East and west, Papers of the VIII Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Vorträge des International Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies, V. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Werner-Reimers-Stiftung, Bad Chicago and Notre Dame, 18–20 October 1991, pp. 115–140, University of Notre Homburg, 26–30 August 1985, pp. 192–213, Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. McEvoy, J. & Dunne, M. (eds.), 2002, History and eschatology in John Scottus D’Onofrio, G., 2020, ‘The speculative system of John Scottus Eriugena and the Eriugena and his time, Proceedings of the X International Conference of the tradition of Vera Philosophia’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies held at Maynooth and Dublin, Eriugena, pp. 213–238, Brill, Leiden. 16–20 August 2000, Leuven University Press, Louvain. Denifle, H. (O.P.) (ed.), 1889, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. I, #128, McGinn, B., 2020, ‘The Periphyseon as Hexaemeral commentary’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A Delalain, Paris. companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 154–188, Brill, Leiden. Duclow, D.F., 1977, ‘Divine nothingness and self-creation in ’,The McGinn, B. & Otten, W. (eds.), 1994, Eriugena: East and west, Papers of the VIII Journal of Religion 57(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/486526 International Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies, Chicago and Notre Dame, 18–20 October 1991, University of Notre Dame Press, Duclow, D.F., 2006, Masters of learned ignorance: Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusanus, Variorum Collected Studies 851, Routledge, London. Notre Dame, IN. History and memory in the Carolingian world Erismann, C., 2020, ‘Between Greek and Latin: Eriugena on logic’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A McKitterick, R., 2004, , Cambridge companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 93–110, Brill, Leiden. University Press, Cambridge. Eriugena, J.S., 1996–2003, Periphyseon, vols I – V, E.A. Jeauneau (ed.), Corpus Moran, D., 1989, The Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena. A study of idealism in the Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, pp. 161–165, Brepols, Turnhout. Translations middle ages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. in I.P. Sheldon-Williams (ed. & transl. 1968, 1972, 1982) and J.J. O’Meara & I.P. Moran, D., 1990, ‘Pantheism from John Scottus Eriugena to Nicholas of Cusa’, Sheldon-Williams (in Jeaneau [ed.] 1995 & 2003). Additional translations:Periphyseon American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly LXIV(1), 131–151. https://doi. (The Division of Nature), transl. I.P. Sheldon-Williams, revised by J.J. O’Meara, 1987 org/10.5840/acpq199064146 (out of print), Montréal, Bellarmin & Washington, Dumbarton Oaks; John the Scot, Periphyseon on the Division of Nature, transl. M.L. Uhlfelder, J.A. Potter (intr.), 1976, Moran, D., 2008, ‘John Scottus Eriugena’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford reprint 2011, Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock, viewed 16 June 2021, from https:// encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 edition), viewed 15 April 2021, from wipfandstock.com/9781610976305/periphyseon-on-the-division-of-nature/. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/. Gavin, J., 2020, ‘A theologian’s itinerary: John Scottus Eriugena’s Christological Moran, D., 2014, ‘Christian Neoplatonism and the phenomenological tradition: The ascent’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 134–153, hidden influence of John Scottus Eriugena’, in W. Otten & M.I. Allen (eds.), Brill, Leiden. Eriugena and creation, Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 68, Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Eriugenian Studies held in honor of Édouard Grabmann, M., 1957, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, vols I & II, Akademie Jeauneau, pp. 601–636, Brepols, Turnhout. Verlag, Berlin. Moran, D., 2020, ‘The reception of Eriugena in modernity: A critical appraisal of Guiu, A., 2020a, ‘Appendix: Benedict XVI assesses Eriugena’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A Eriugena’s dialectical philosophy of infinite nature’, in A. Guiu (ed.),A companion companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 454–457, Brill, Leiden. to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 419–446, Brill, Leiden. Guiu, A., 2020b, ‘Eriugena reads Maximus confessor: Christology as cosmic Oldcurrencyexchange, n.d., O’Brien Banknote Guide: Five Pounds, Irish Banknote ‘B theophany’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 296–325, Series’ viewed n.d., from https://oldcurrencyexchange.com/2015/07/13/obrien- Brill, Leiden. banknote. Guiu, A., 2020c, ‘Introduction’, in A. Guiu (ed.),A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, O’Meara, J.J., 1988, Eriugena, Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp. 1–6, Brill, Leiden. O’Meara, J.J. & Bieler, L. (eds.), 1973, The mind of Eriugena, Papers of a Colloquium Hankey, W., 1998, ‘Augustinian immediacy and Dionysian mediation in John Colet, on Eriugena, Dublin, 14–18 July 1970, Irish University Press, Dublin. Edmund Spenser, Richard Hooker, and the Cardinal de Bérulle’, in D. De Courcelles (ed.), Augustinus in der Neuzeit, Colloque de la Herzog August Bibliothek de Otten, W., 1991, The anthropology of Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Brill, Leiden. Wolfenbüttel, 14–17 octobre 1996, pp. 125–160, Editions Brepols, Turnhout. Otten, W., 2013, ‘Eriugena, John Scottus’, in K. Pollmann & W. Otten (eds.), The Haren, M., 1985, Medieval thought. The western intellectual tradition from Oxford guide to the historical reception of Augustine, pp. 938–941, Oxford antiquity to the thirteenth century, Macmillan, London. University Press, Oxford.

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access Page 13 of 13 Original Research

Otten, W., 2020a, ‘Suspended between cosmology and anthropology: Natura’s bond Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (ed. & transl.), 1968, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon in Eriugena’s Periphyseon’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to John Scottus Eriugena, (De Divisione Naturae), Liber Primus, L. Bieler (co-ed.), Dublin Institute for pp. 189–212, Brill, Leiden. Advanced Studies, Dublin. Otten, W., 2020b, Thinking nature and the nature of thinking: From Eriugena to Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (ed. & transl.), 1972, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon Emerson, Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA. (De Divisione Naturae), Liber Secundus, L. Bieler (co-ed.), Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin. Otten, W. & Allen, M.I. (eds.), 2014, Eriugena and creation, Instrumenta Patristica et Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (ed. & transl.), 1982, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon Mediaevalia 68, Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Eriugenian (De Divisione Naturae), Liber Tertius, L. Bieler (co-ed.), Dublin Institute for Studies, held in honor of Édouard Jeauneau, Chicago, 9–12 November 2011, Advanced Studies, Dublin. Brepols, Turnhout. Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (transl.), 1995, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon Pseudo-Dionysius, 1990–1991, Corpus Dionysiacum, vols I & II, B. Suchla, G. (De Divisione Naturae), Liber Quartus, J.J. O’Meara (co-transl.), E.A. Jeauneau Heil & A.M. Ritter (eds.), Patristische Texte und Studen, vols 33 & 36, Walter de (ed.), M.A. Zier (co-ed.), Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin. Gruyter, Berlin. Siewers, A.K., 2020, ‘Eriugena’s Irish background’, in A. Guiu (ed.), A companion to Roques, R. (ed.), 1977, Jean Scot Erigène et l’histoire de la philosophie, Actes du II John Scottus Eriugena, pp. 9–30, Brill, Leiden. Colloque International, Laon, 7–12 juillet 1975, Éditions du Centre national de la Tugwell, S. (O.P.), (transl., ed. & intr.), 1988, Albert and Thomas: Selected writings, recherche scientifique, Paris. Paulist Press, New York, NY. Rorem, P., 1993, Pseudo-Dionysius: A commentary on the texts and an introduction Van Riel, G., Steel, C. & McEvoy, J. (eds.), 1996, Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible to their influence, Oxford University Press, Oxford. and hermeneutics, Proceedings of the IX International Colloquium of the Society Sheldon-Williams, I.P., 1967, ‘Johannes Scottus Eriugena’, in A.H. Armstrong (ed.),The for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies held at Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 7–10 June 1995, Leuven University Press, Louvain. Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy, pp. 518–531, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Weiner, S.F., 2007, Eriugenas Negative Ontologie, B.R. Grüner, Amsterdam.

http://www.hts.org.za Open Access